Ditto (albeit Eurasian)

The problem is I put like 70% as Chinese, because I guarantee there's a Chinese person in the world who looks exactly like the portrait. China is so mixed that it's a total wildcard.

lots of contact with asian people here, definitely all look different, watch japanese and korean dramas on the regular so should be able to tell at least those. 6/18, funniest thing was to me though thinking "oh you're definitely japanese" and being spot on twice. The biggest shortcoming on this quiz: not telling you the correct answer, or the site giving guidance/examples of their data set.

This website is just the author's personal judgment exercise.

Yeah, none of these were obvious to me. China is an especially massive country and none of these people would look out of place in parts of China (I've seen every one of these facial types in China speaking native Mandarin). Most of the "signal" is gonna be from fashion, and/or the biases of the test-maker in what they choose to represent and how closely those faces match stereotypes.

>are older pictures

I am pretty sure it's 20+ years old. Just based on when I remember taking it.

I'm white and got 7/18 and it said "You can't tell the difference" but I think it's because some of them I had no idea. There were a few where I was really sure and I turned out to be right.

I think it's the same with white people. There are some who look unique to their country and I can tell with high confidence but for others, I have no idea; they just look like a generic white person.

For example, I think these public figures look/looked very stereotypical for their country:

German: Otto Von Bismarck

English/Scottish: Hugh Grant, David Bowie, Winston Churchill, Maggie Smith

French: Napoleon, Jacque Chirac, Alain Delon, Gerard Depardieu, Francoise Hardy

American: Clint Eastwood, Abraham Lincoln, JFK

Swedish: Agnetha Faltskog

This is a really interesting comment. Sometimes when I see photos of native people from South America (especially anything Amazonian), they do look a bit South East Asian to me. Do you think those people that you saw in Mexico were mixed (or fully) native (not European by descent)?

My Vietnamese friend and I once went to a Philippine food festival. Most of the Filipino people there tried to talk to my friend in Tagalog. He’d talk back to them in Vietnamese. Granted, he doesn’t look Vietnamese to me, either. He looks like an islander.

I have an Indian friend who often gets mistaken for Hispanic in the Southern US.

I'm not sure it's bad at all. China has around 1.5 billion people and officially recognizes 55 ethnicities.

Some of them look more like non Chinese people than like I he Chinese ethnicities.

9/18 and I lived in China & Japan for 10 years altogether. It's a tough test! There were only a couple that were obvious.

Obviously, random chance... It's a bit ignorant/racist to expect people from different countries to look distinctly different (fashion notwithstanding), when genetics are so overlapping

12 years ago from last submission (2 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7446493

Seriously. I remember distinctly playing with this in 2004-5.

It's almost like bordering other countries sometimes leads to cross pollination... /s

Right? I was thinking how come it takes such a simple site to load. Then I saw the footer, it's 25 years old.

Being on the Hacker News front page probably has something to do with that.

It's a 25-year old website and most people were on slow dial-up connection. No one would've stuck around for 17 images to be pre-loaded.

It’s nothing. This is not a test to take a value judgement from.

I am a Chinese person living in Japan, I got 3/18 too.

Why would you think a site trying to compare Chinese, Japanese and Koreans has forgotten about India of all places? They must've also completely forgotten Mongolia, all nations of SE Asia and Russia's Far East exist.

OP is not the one who made this 25yo site.

No it’s just sloooooowwwwww

Admitting this kind of conflicts with the One China Policy and the implicit Han Supremacist attitude prevalent in CCP politics but China is ethnically diverse compared to Korea and Japan simply due to its geographic scale. There might be a certain Han "look" but I'd expect "Chinese" to be much more difficult to pin down even if you ignore the absurdity of trying to pin down "pure" ethnicities across an entire continent.

Delineating Korean and Japanese "looks" already seems a fool's errand if you consider that archeological evidence demonstrates close cultural and trade relationships (or alternatively: astronomically unlikely astonishing examples of parallel developments) between the two regions dating back at least to the Neolithic period - and that the current "native" population seems to only date back no farther than that period despite archeological evidence of prior populations.

Of course this all also exists in the context of Chinese history which largely hinges on what exactly you want to call "China" historically as for most of its written history there really wasn't a single unified entity.

We tend to project backwards a notion of nationhood that in the West largely only came about in the 19th century. In Europe, as a German, I find my own country to be such an obvious example to this as people from all nooks of the political spectrum will find ways to try and shoehorn the modern federal republic into an unbroken chain of history starting with the "Germanic" tribes valiantly resisting Roman rule.

In my country's specific case, the origin myth is completely nonsensical if you look at the actual historic record. The shared identity of the various tribes settling the region only existed from the outside perspective of Rome which simply referred to all foreign territories as being settled "barbarians" (because that's what the foreign languages sounded like to Romans - to put that in perspective, imagine we unironically called Asians "chingchongs").

The first entity with the word "German" in its name was the Holy Roman Empire but the words "of Germany" were only added centuries later and for the longest time the mythological warrior Hermann who "repelled" the Roman invaders by "uniting the tribes" was seen as a villain because - true to its name - the Holy Roman Empire saw itself as the successor to the Roman Empire. It literally included parts of Italy after all and was preceded by the Carolingian Empire (covering much of the same territory but more of modern France). And of course more recently we've learned that the tribes were actually more divided than unified following the conflict with Rome and that the role of Hermann may have been heavily overstated due to the fact that he was a Roman soldier and thus provided a good basis for a grandiose narrative.

You could point at the Kingdom of Germany as a historical root of German identity but there was no shared cultural identity during that period and certainly no awareness of it among its population. The common folk for most of the middle ages would have most likely only been aware of their local ruler or clergy with a faint awareness of the overarching power structures but migration through trade not withstanding separations were often as strong between neighboring villages as between modern countries.

The closest thing we get to an idea of a "German national identity" is following the conquest by Napoleon and the rise of an aristocratic/mercantile republic monarchy which provided the democratic roots for the modern republic - but even in WW1 "German" culture was heavily defined by Prussia (which covered most of German territory). Historically therefore it seems less like German nationalism was the politicalization of a shared ethnic, cultural and political identity but rather provided a framework to fabricate such an identity in its absence. Even if you ignore the absurdity of claiming a unified "German" cultural identity, the now popular notion of there being such a thing as a "German" ethnic identity flies in the face of there still being distinct native but "non-German" ethnic populations in parts of Germany despite centuries of Germanization and assimilation (notably Danish Germans in the North and Sorbs in the East).

Much like trying to draw the line where you "enter the atmosphere" of the Earth, borders are ultimately arbitrary delineations no matter how you define them and populations will move around, mix and change over time. The abstractions they help us create are likewise arbitrary and have more to do with assertions of power and control than any grander mythology used to justify them.

to be fair I'd love such a quizz

Exactly! I'm sure most Asian people would fail that test. What a silly thing to measure.

Exceptional! Can I short your whole portfolio? :)